465 Round Hill Road
465 Round Hill Road, which was first listed for sale in 2010 at $12.950 million, is once again on the market, now priced at $8.995, but who knows what its price will be a month from now? I’ve commented before on the odd pricing practices of this owner and her various agents; they started at $12.950, dropped it, slowly, to the mid-$10s, then raised it back to that $12.950, then starting cutting its price again, and so on.
I’m not a huge fan of the interior of the house, but homes owned by interior decorators usually aren’t designed for the likes of me, so that’s no matter. Wonderful views from one of the highest spots in Greenwich. The owner paid film writer Jeb Stuart (“Die Hard”) $4.5 for the existing 1775 house then razed it and built this one, so I’m sure there’s a lot of money sunk in these walls; there just seems to be a problem getting it out.
More interesting than the house is the owner’s ex-husband, pornographer (and “philanthropist”, of course) Carl Ruderman.
‘The invisible man’ of porn
Ruderman, dubbed “the invisible man” of porn by fellow skin magazine publisher Al Goldstein in 1989 for his low profile, was never charged with any crime, reportedly because he told authorities that he delegated responsibility for day-to-day operations of Crescent Publishing to Chew and had no knowledge of the billing scam.One former Crescent employee said that Ruderman certainly lived up to the “invisible man” sobriquet at the company’s Manhattan offices.
“We used to call him the Wizard of Oz, because you never saw the guy,” said the employee, who spoke with MSNBC.com on condition of anonymity. “I saw him twice the whole time I worked for him.”
For What It's Worth 
Please tell me you are joking that a house built in 1775 was allowed to be torn down. Please.
Actually 1725.
Oh, well that’s different: EOS, Greenwich requires that all houses built before 1750 be razed – it’s a safety thing.
You DO know it’s the lowest form of wit (but I do love it!)?
Unfortunately, most Americans will never get it. No clue why. My sarcasm bombs every time. Same with hum(o)ur. Americans rarely get European humour, although that is slowly changing with UK TV series like The Office and others being well accepted Stateside.
Now THAT’S funny! I do love (and get, most often) your sense of humor.
What’s NOT funny is that such a rare house could be torn down. Bedford uses gestapo tactics to preserve old homes. Greenwich says, old homes, what old homes? There has to be some in-between. Was there any discussion prior to the razing? Did someone at least save the floor boards and whatever was left of the original home?
I understand how upset you are to see something beautiful thrown away but here’s the thing with real estate: if you buy it – you OWN it. You can do whatever you want (within FAR and the restrictions). You may think people should appreciate old wood floors or whatever. Others might hate them. Others might want new and gray – lots of gray and whatever else they want.
God knows my own ancestors had no problem clearing out the unsightly, drafty and obsolete wigwams and hogans of the people who sold them THEIR homes.
It’s all about property rights.
yup – it is. And we need to keep that freedom intact.
If I remember correctly, the original house wasn’t razed. It burned down shortly after the property was originally bought.
You may be right – I know one of the beautiful houses up there burned, and it could well have been this one.
Anonymous @2pm: I agree with you that homeowners have the right – I fought that very case here in Bedford when a homeowner was challenged by the Historical Preservation Commission for wanting to raze a property they considered historic. It was a huge long drown out case that pit your point, the homeowner should be able to do what they want, against those preservationists who say if we tear down every home of a certain age, then what’s the point of having historic preservation. The saga was an ugly ugly mess.
It ended in some happy medium – that the actual belfry was saved and allowed to be incorporated into the new build.
https://earthoceanskyredux.com/2012/03/29/going-batty-for-the-belfry/
That said, I do think that it’s very hard to comprehend someone in 2006 thinking it was okay to tear down honest to goodness Greenwich historical importance. Donate the damn thing, let someone take it apart or move it but let it live on, even if that means as boards in someone else’s home. I couldn’t have torn it down.
I wish that people who covet the land an historic house sits on, but not the house, would just find another lot – they’re available – and leave the historic one to those who appreciate such things.
In the other hand, the market for old houses is shrinkingly small: witness the fall from favor of brown furniture and even more classic antiques.
It is fine to tear down a historic house. Someone is selling the home. Someone wants to buy it. They buy it, they own it. They don’t owe anything to anyone. Private property is private property. Honestly – a home that is almost 300 years old NEEDS to come down for safety reasons.
“For safety reasons”? WTF?
Yes – houses made out of wood do not last forever! At least that’s how I feel. You can do whatever you want with your house which is my whole point.
My thinking is that a house has stood for 300 years, it’s probably in no imminent danger of toppling over tomorrow
Probably so, but if I buy that house it is up to me if I want to build something new. Jeez. I thought people around here were a little more libertarian.
Chris: I can’t seem to find any Google reference to a circa 1725 house burning down or being torn down. I suspect the documents on file with the town when the new 465 was built would we find out what happened to the old house. Look, I’m not stupid, I understand that a house built in the 1700s has no usable liveable life as a main house today and yes, homeowners should have the right for land they own….so it’s not even that I’d say the buyers who tore down 465 should have looked elsewhere – I only say they had plenty of options – to incorporate a piece of the old house into the new, or call one of any number of old house restorers who’d kill to keep a board or piece of trim or two – that’s all. I’m not trying to take any moral highground or pass judgement – it’s only my two cents, for what its worth.
It doesn’t seem overdecorated at all to me. Spectacular home if you are looking for a large estate.
The Brits couldn’t “get” Johnny Carson, I think they are the problem if they could not get one of the greatest post WW II comics. Whist we did “get” Fawlty Towers, and others. Whilst we took ‘Steptoe and Son’ and improved it into ‘Sanford and Son’.
Then there’s the French and their over-the-top love for Jerry Lewis. European humour? Now you’ve made me laugh.
To Anonymous at 3:56 who said Honestly – a home that is almost 300 years old NEEDS to come down for safety reasons.:
Thank heavens not everyone feels so detached about historic homes as you. Sure, maybe they have no place for you to live in but they DO represent a part of American history. That counts for something. They can be moved. They can be saved on another parcel of land. They can be incorporated into places like Mystic where kids can tour a village of old homes.
Just look at the historic homes listed in Connecticut that have survived – thankfully no one said, hey, it’s old, it NEEDS to come down…phew.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_oldest_buildings_in_Connecticut
Ignorance is bliss, EOS. Except for the rest of us who have to listen to it.
Holy cow Mrs redux. I am, in fact, a history buff. However, I would personally not want to live in a very old home. For a lot of reasons. # one: it is likely to be a problem for my allergies. #’s 2, 3, 4 and 5 I will not bore you with and it doesn’t matter. My point is this: If you are the one who buys the home it is your right to do what pleases you. Personal property rights are important. Perhaps you are a democrat? or feeling the Bern? Want to tell others what they should be doing? You write with regard to old homes: “They can be moved. They can be saved on another parcel of land. They can be incorporated into places like Mystic where kids can tour a village of old homes”. Indeed they can be! IF, and ONLY if, YOU BUY THEM! You can go the expense to preserve homes – you could even start a charity to buy and preserve old homes. But you cannot tell me what to do with my hard earned money. Or be a bully and tell me you’re better than me because I don’t care to live in a structure that is hundreds of years old.
I guess you can’t read. I said, right off the bat, that I firmly believe in the rights of a homeowner. The Bedford Preservation Commission clearly bullied the couple in Katonah – I agree that was wrong. I also agree: do what you want with your hard earned money.
Now that we agree on the basics, just a final note – watch out that your children don’t take the same approach when your floor boards creak and your windows leak and they say hey, it’s time to take the old boy down. 🙂 Just sayin……
You are correct – someday my children will sell our home and I fully expect the buyer to tear it down. Yes, that’s a sad thing but it’s just a house. People are what matters.
Aaah dear sir, you completely missed the point of my last sentence. Read it again, think, and report back. Just sayin…..
Are you serious? You meant that I should worry my kids would put me down when I get old and creaky? You, dear woman, missed the point of my last sentence which is hard to do since it was clear as can be. My children were raised to value people, not stuff.
I like stuff. You, not so much.
So strange – you dislike a person because they stand up for the right of a homeowner to do what he wishes with his property. You attempt to make a leap that those who prefer to tear down and build new don’t value older people.
Ever see that old show called Dinosaurs? With the Muppet Dinosaur family? Hysterically funny…….there was an episode where their Grandma has to get Hurled into the Tar Pits because she is 72 and ALL dinosaurs get hurled at age 72……..go look on YouTube, etc to find old episodes….one of the best sit coms of the 90’s…..
That’s me. I hate old people. I especially hate old people who stand up for homeowners rights. I’m just an awful human being. Thanks for making me see the light.
Love this home!
So if I buy this home, can I have 5 families move in & they pay me rent??
Lol
The old house did burn down shortly after Ruderman purchased it. I remember the Fire Marshall saying something about a spark going up the chimney because of debris in the empty oil tank. Roof caught on fire and down it went. It was not suspicious because the homeowner hadn’t wanted to insure it for as much as the bank forced her to.